(Note. These comments are not for Friday agenda, probably not for Monday
... they're for "major re-org issue" day ....)
POLICY PREFACE. My own priority in all issues from now on is ... minimize
the time and work to publishing a clear and consistent CR for a useful
SpecGL 1.0. Resist re-opening any old issues, resist broadening issues
unnecessarily, resist blanket re-org proposals (no matter how appealing),
etc. To close all SpecGL and OpsGL issues quickly, I think we must focus
on fixing serious technical defects, clarifying places where our intent is
unclear, and consolidating only where it is easy.
Accordingly, I'm going to argue against my blanket re-org proposal of
LC-74. It should not be done for SpecGL 1.0. Save it for SpecGL 2.0,
similar to how WCAG made a good and useful 1.0, and is revising into 2.0,
incorporating "lessons learned in practice".
Here's my proposal for resolution of issue #74 disposition, focusing on
those "easy" consolidations (more or less editorial) should be in scope for
SpecGL 1.0, and what ones should be out of scope.
Proposal:
1.) reject LC-74 as a whole; instead, consider these limited specifics...
*** Probably in scope...
2.) consolidate GL3 and GL10 by moving CP10.1 into GL3 and CP10.2 into GL13.
3.) GL11 (conformance claims) and GL12 (ICS rqts) would seem to be a
comfortable merger.
*** Probably out of scope...
4.) GL4/5/6: I'm very dubious that the *concepts* --
profiles/modules/levels -- can be merged without serious loss. But more
later on that (in progress AIs). (It is possible that the 7 existing
checkpoints could be put under one GL -- still identifying each of the
three concepts as a separate DoV --and I presently have no strong feeling
about that. If so, then 4.3, 5.2, 6.1 could be editorially combined.)
Note. I'm going to make fuller comments on prof/mod/lev issue separately,
for input into that ongoing topic.
Regards,
-Lofton.